skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am not an expert on this.. but here is a theory. Broker's are incentivized to have the short squeeze stop.

Someone please correct me if I am (or how I am) wrong with the following:

Bob is a broker.

Jack comes along buys 100 shares of X.

Bob lends those 100 shares of X to Amy to sell short.

Amy sells it short. Price shoots up.. Amy says “oh crap.. Sorry bill. Simply cannot buy back those shares. I am bankrupt. I physically do not have the money to do so.

Jack will still expect Bob the broker to make sure his 100 shares of X are there one way or the other.

Bob the broker has to buy back those shares it lent out to Amy so that Jack the account holder is still able to sell/trade their shares.
If curious see also

2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20818537

2017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15476733

2015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306335

2011 (1 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3068513

Related from 2008 (by Brad Cox): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=239323
I appreciate that! Thank you
He's saying that this isn't WallStreetBets coordinating to do a pump-and-dump. That's just a Ponzi scheme in which they'd be taking from each other rather than big hedge funds. It's not that dumb. It's WallStreetBets coordinating to do a short squeeze. They're trying to corner the stocks that the short sellers will have to buy at some point, whatever the price. They're trying to transfer money not from each other, but from big hedge funds to themselves, a very different proposition.

Big finance is terrified of this because it indicates that the coordination problem for small independent investors to pull off a short squeeze has been solved. That can greatly increase their future risk. You no longer have to be a Porsche to put a short squeeze on VW stock, you can be a posse of internet randos that are much harder to predict or influence.

It also explains that the short sellers make themselves more vulnerable to this attack by shorting greater than 100% of the stock. They have to compete all the more to buy those stocks, raising the price even further.

The idea that these small investors are doing this for revenge or ideological reasons rather than profit never rang true to me, so this does.

I know many of you will find this obvious but for me it's a useful explanation.

Yudkowsky characterizes this as "a literally historically unprecedented attempt at group coordination among human beings." The success of such an attempt is surely a warning bell to any large institution, because any institution can be overturned by effective group coordination. If governments and big finance fear this, it may be because they understand it. Along with anyone who values stability over change.
How could I join?
Citadel transacts Robinhood trades and is overstretched due to Melvins stupidity

Setting a short position then cutting off trades is pretty textbook market manipulation
No IntelliJ yet Java and related technologies are listed multiple times...
That's funny coming from IBM

https://qz.com/924167/ibm-remote-work-pioneer-is-calling-tho... (2017)
Most buyers didn’t get mortgages from their retail bank, they got them through mortgage brokers.

Maybe there were lots of hapless old people who were misled by some bank they mistakenly trusted for years.

I don’t think so, the many examples I personally knew from that period were getting loans from specialized banks that set up mortgage shops, like Washington Mutual.

The book (and movie) The Big Short digs into this how regular people were overextending.

To clarify, the banks were bad actors by offering and participating. But reasonable people were avoiding the situation until the whole system tipped over. Someone borrowing at 40% debt to income or higher should never have done that, even if they trusted their local banker who was saying it was fine. Finance requires personal responsibility and people need education to help make these decisions (and they shouldn’t get this help from someone with a vested adversarial financial interest).
What about on the apple app store?
Not a lawyer, but I imagine it’s similar to how industrial accidents are treated. If there was proper due diligence and precautions, and it was truly an “act of God” sort of thing, that’s understandable. If on the other hand their processes are not up to snuff and they moved a bit too fast and broke one too many things, I imagine they wouldn’t be treated as nicely.
There exists bitterness towards white women, who "joined" the civil rights movement in the 60s. The criticism is they stopped fighting once their issues were starting to be addressed.

The whole idea of reframing around class is to say "I know you think race is the primary differentiator, but I really think it's class/money/power". That is a negation of BLM, whose purpose is to bring attention to black Americans' rate of being murdered by police.

Remember the response to "All Lives Matter"? (Putting aside the bad faith actors), a number of people think police violence in general should be the #1 priority. The responses are often, "yes, all lives matter - but right now we're talking about black lives." Remember the cancer-walk comparison? If you show up to a breast cancer walk, trying to talk about prostate cancer, you're being a jerk. (The analogy here would be to show up to the breast cancer walk talking about how it's not even about cancer - all diseases need more awareness.)

It's very complicated. Attention is a limited thing, and while it'd be great if we could care about BLM and poor whites and addicts and immigrants, that doesn't seem to be how the public's collection attention works. Reframing the problem might be a better solution, but I don't think progressives would be receptive towards the reframe.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. I personally agree with your statement that it's really about the "shared fight against intergenerational poverty", but I'm not brave enough to try and lead the reframe because I think both sides would reject it. I think this route would address many of the core issues that have led to the Trumpworld voters, who don't care what the stance is as long as someone is fighting for them.
Design a decentralized protocol that can handle quick incremental tweaks as it scales.

AFAICT there's no consensus model for federated or distributed services that can go fast. So you'd better get your design right the first time around to minimize tweaks and changes. That requires domain expertise, and FOSS is famously bad at paying what it costs for that.
Yeah, brokerages will do that if the stock takes a big drop like it did today. Oh, did you not read that part of your margin agreement? According to thread, some are just now getting to that part. Those same folks shouldn't have been trading GME on margin.

If it's any consolation, I've had Fidelity, IB, et. al., do the exact same thing when a trade turned sour. Difference is, I didn't run to Reddit to display my ignorance to the world.
Maybe, but even then the "free speech problem" should never have become a "national security problem". National security aside, free speech works pretty well when the public square isn't privatized by a handful of entities with the same general business model (using outrage to sell ads), which is perhaps your very point.
Microsoft made a giant climate pledge one year ago
Once the short positions are covered, shouldn't we expect the price instantly fall to its original level, modulo retail bagholders still buying due to fog of war?

And... The price is in freefall in the last minutes of trading today.
Your understanding is wrong.

Voting against result certification is occasionally used as a protest against certain specific irregularities. It is absolutely not common to vote against them, and not in these numbers (i.e. not as a lone congressperson or two drawing attention to something they see as a problem).

[ EDIT: added known historical examples ]

Specific examples: 2016, 11 Democrats rose to object to certifying Trump's results; none of them had obtained a Senator's cosignature and so all were dismissed immediately. Objections were based on reports of Russian interference, subsequently confirmed in the broadest sense by the Mueller and Senate reports, though their findings would not have likely invalidated any actual results.

2004: 1 Senator and 1 Representative raised objections to results favoring Bush from a single state. They both stressed that their objections were not intended to change the outcome of that election.

2001: on the order of 15 Representatives raised objections to the Gore/Bush result, which had been decided by the SCOTUS. No Senator joined them, and Gore himself dropped the Gavel on their protest.
> eg: Java annotations can change the behavior of a method from a simple getter to something else entirely with hooks to be used/referenced at runtime.

To be slightly fair to Java, annotations don't themselves do anything to the annotated method. Calling a method directly is the same regardless of whatever annotations are on it -- of course, unless it or one of its upstreams looks at the annotations, but that's isomorphic to just passing the data along.

Java annotations induce different behaviors in specific callers that are designed to take advantage of those annotations, which is arguably even worse -- like a meta analogue of the COMEFROM keyword.
> how often the term 'oversight' is used vs 'regulation' when these guys are talking.

Is that how we're determining efficacy now...? Semantics?

I take it that you like FINRA because of the R in the name.
Yeah I can't wait to live in a world where we enable more financial market mobbing by the uninformed and emotional masses. What could go wrong?

Tune will change when RSUs and 401ks get effected.
tech industry always serves to first benefit the biggest spenders, and consequently the greatest polluters. there have been efforts to quickly move from big spenders to the general public, but most carry with them The individualistic perspective that tech breeds.

as an example, if you really want to do good by the environment, it is significantly lower cost and significantly better for the environment to set up an efficient bus system and make all busing free for major cities, but the tech response has been individualized electric cars.

things like US military not having to report how much they use in fossil fuels, mean that any measurements we get are always going to be from our observed effects, rather than from our known outputs.

if you don't know where pollutants are coming from, then the likelihood you'll be able to change anything is very low. also if you actually don't know how waste is being treated, you have no measurement of cost. The reason why we have attached pull tabs on the tops of cans, is that soda companies used to be charged for litter associated with their product. that innovation significantly reduced litter, but many of those restrictions and monitors have been lifted. there's no incentive for a company to produce recyclable goods. we also can observe that recycling as has been taught to behave throughout the United States is simply not the case. there is effectively no plastics recycling industry, it has been a sham for decades.

societies will have to start to make intentional economic decisions towards usafrican principles and communally shared resources, rather than planned obsolescence to make a dent. this is probably the most important social change that could be made for the environment that could be made.

Even with all of that most metrics look at atmospheric effects, which is very important for understanding temperature. there is, however, a deep need for more studying of topsoil and deep ocean surveys.

solutions to climate change problems have to be developed with an ecological mindset, and will require significant social change. this is not about individual responsibility. the top polluters vastly outweigh the combined bottom polluters in waste.

there are a lot of people who are trying to solve this problem with data, but That's not a new strategy. many of the national Labs have climate change models. Lawrence Livermore national Labs does fantastic research with great data from a United States perspective, and have been for 30 years. I posit that the problem is not enough great minds on data.
What distinction are you trying to make here? A completely open protocol with no single controlling entity would not be inherently beholden to government control or laws like a platform would be. It can result in the distribution of illegal content such as child porn. How is this not an example of potential anarchy?
Here in Canada, we have laws which don't originate from cold war paranoia. They're just attempts to cool the heatedness of elections. For example, you can't campaign before the official election season begins, and there are limits on how much you can spend, and how much people can donate, there are limits on polling close to the election, it's illegal to reveal early results in the eastern parts of the country (where polls close earlier) to the western parts until all polls are closed, and so on.

Many Western democracies have laws like this, which would be incompatible with the American First Amendment, but which are basically intended to foster democratic health, and aren't particularly authoritarian.
I would add that is not only code contributor did not write.

It might be that contributor does not understand his legal obligations to his current employer and I think probably no one is going to attach note from their company that they are allowed to contribute to the project.

In the end paw shop is responsible if they are buying stolen goods, signing a paper is not a "get out of the jail free card" because a thief would sign on anything anyway just to sell stuff. Even if you get the paper that contribution is legal there is still a chance of legal trouble.
It used to be buggy but I've been using it now for months and haven't had any problems.
Kelebihan Id Pro VIP Yang Jarang Di Ketahui Player Judi Online
Kelebihan Id Pro Vip Situs Judi Online - Id pro di dunia permainan judi online sebenarnya amat bermanfaat, bahkan sangat bernilai.
I think you're talking about networking for money, and that's a thing.

But there are also ideas. Even in fields where there's basically no money, half the world's innovation happening within a circle of a few miles is routine. For instance this happens in music, repeatedly.
I'm not sure an app that allows you to put your entire account balance into options trades is engaging in good-faith paternalism by preventing people from buying a particular stock.
Coming in Go 1.16: ReadDir and DirEntry
>I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption.

If you need the actions of the government to be explicit then you'd have a difficult time to prove any case.

Let's turn this back towards you, based on the evidence of previous actions by the government of the EU (and EU), how can you claim anything prevents this malicious behavior? Nothing explicitly prevents these abuses. This is an intentional design. Does the right to E2E exist in this resolution? It doesn't, so please don't assume they won't use a roundabout way to remove this human right.

Please don't ignore abuses of governmental power, they weld their power with little recourse. Let's not be quick to encourage their poor legislation.
We already have that where I live. It's an espresso machine in a van, they drive by offices in the morning and then stop and parks and other communal spots during lunch
Unlikely. Robinhood has something called ‘instant deposits’ which creates massive risk when used to buy something like GME with unsettled funds.
Gowalla: Going Out Again
The above URL isn't working now but you can read the article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110603133435/http://virtualsch....

I believe the strange spellings may be because it was OCR'd from a faxed copy.
Shelf Engine (YC S18) is hiring a Senior Data Scientist to stop food waste
To my knowledge, I see most JPEG images encode their height in an "APP1" EXIF segment, and in their SOF1 segment (which is basically just a basic-info segment for the core JPEG bitstream). It's also possible to store the size in an APP1 XMP section, but that's mostly non-essential metadata for interchange purposes, and I usually don't see the size duplicated there for JPEGs anyway (PNG does though, if it has an XMP chunk).

It's possible that some of the other officially-defined segments (see https://exiftool.org/TagNames/JPEG.html) might also contain duplicate info, but then that'd be specific to the app that uses it, not for general-purpose use.

Storing the size in easily-parseable EXIF metadata and then once again in the JPEG bitstream seems pretty reasonable to me. Not to mention if you run a metadata/EXIF stripper on a JPEG file, then you remove all duplicate info and the only remaining image-dimensions will be stored in the JPEG bitstream anyway.
I disagree. Not to say that the consolidation is a good thing, but it's not the core problem.

If I spend a year of my life and savings to write a new database, how do I make money? Can I make money and open source my work? How?

There isn't an easy answer. Open Source isn't always the right answer, and a whole lot of naive software developers are learning this the hard way.
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml
The key to paid ads is detachment
> But that doesn't change the core action here: let's conspire to corner the market and force an artificially high price.

First, I recommend you look up the meaning of conspiracy in the dictionary: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."

Tell me, where was the secret plan? Everything on WSB happened in the open, in plain view of millions of people.

Second, the market is not even what's cornered here. It's the hedge fund owners who shorted gamestop (fully understanding the risks this entailed), who are cornered. They are the ones who are driving the price up as they try to cover their short positions.
Yes, but "Robinhood Instant" is limited to a subset of the funds you are depositing. It is set up as a margin account to allow them to trade on your behalf before the money hits your Robinhood account. But the money will be hitting, so you will have cash to cover the trade. It's not the same as actual margin trading (where, for example, in this case, the user did not have cash to cover and so his position was liquidated by the broker.)
Yes, the extrapolation is often applied to people who really want to achieve one thing going in a particular direction, so it makes sense there. "You want to do X which is not terrible evil in itself, but if we let you, you'll want to do more things like X so we don't want that precedent"
robbingood
Smelled like scam, is a scam. So glad I didn't fall into the robinhood trap, I was really close to.

Edit: yes this comment isn't related to the linked article.
The tale of how this guy became the "Tamale King" is fantastically written, funny, and interesting.

http://www.tamaleking.com/page5.html
The key test for me is whether a Rails/React site makes the leap. Perhaps the tech is just too new and therefore too risky
Did the school allow that? I'm happy they did, but surprised.
If Robin Hood was allowing people to sell but not to buy, and most other Citadel involved brokerages were doing the same, who was able to purchase the massive volume of shares being sold? If it turns out that it was only allowing large hedge funds with massive short exposure then it means that they were artificially reducing price to bail them out and the very real expense of the retail investors that were suddenly and inexplicably bag holders on a stock that could not be longed.

If this is true, then this is a Bernie Madoff level crime and I hope that those responsible get similar sentences. Tens / Hundreds of thousands of retail investors were involved in the WSB long, all of these people potentially suffered damages, some of them significant. Its fine to say only invest what you can lose but in your risk analysis I am sure that the market maker intentionally committing fraud to force you to dump your shares probably did not factor in.
My take is that the stock was basically being manipulated by an angry mob. While I completely applaud their efforts and stand against the unfair advantage that institutional investors have, I can also see where their approach could trigger broader market instability. Let's assume it was a broad coalition that assessed the risk and decided extraordinary measures were in the public's interest.
Edit: Half a century, not decade. Also, here is another comment to downvote, I suppose.
They explicitly state those will still be available even if your account is deactivated.
I don’t know about you, but the vast majority of people I know don’t have RSUs nor 401ks.
I said on another comment, brokers should have been raising margin reqs on these stocks the past few weeks as it became obvious this was a volatility nightmare in the making. That would have given them increased protection and dampened the enthusiasm.

Also, I don't think any of these people crying foul consider that those who short stocks do so at constant peril of forced close outs because shares are no longer available to be borrowed. The notice involved can be minutes to hours.
>Government has chosen atheism as its religion

You're gonna want to provide proof of that claim.
I'm aware; I'm not sold on this most extreme version of pure-functionalism. I think it's unintuitive, syntactically clunky, and hard to reason about, despite the benefits of purity. I'm a believer in the functional core/imperative shell approach.
It seems to me instead of holding ineffective street protests they are actively trying to get a piece of the pie, or destroy it in the process.
The Whole, Messy, Ridiculous GameStop Saga in One Sentence
This is probably legit, unlike delisting it. You are taking a loan from them with the understanding that they can (in some circumstances) liquidate your investment to lower their own risk. This absolutely seems like one of those circumstances.
Citadel is not a clearing house...
Awesome project. I'm not sure if it's just in Firefox, but I would recommend that you be a little more aggressive with the whitespace in the books.

I've found that iBooks has a great display stylesheet for epub and what makes it great is the ratio of text size to whitespace. It also limits how wide text can get - no need to spread it across the whole page. You could probably double the size of your margins to improve this.

I am also not sure if Firefox is causing this, but inter-line distances do not seem to be consistent and that is very distracting as a reader.

In both browsers the next/prev page arrows are also weirdly off-center.
You mean to comments about Robinhood on those sites? Links would be helpful.

Edit: I don't think I'm following you.
Rotting, as its known, is just the tree being metabolized by other living organisms. That process is the same as burning except in that the energy is used by the organism. The net result being the carbon being turned into C02 same as burning.

AKA, whether you burn it, or leave it in the environment to rot/compost/etc the carbon eventually turns back into C02. In order for trees to be a carbon sink they have to be sequestered in an O2 free environment forever. AKA, they need to be feedstock for the oil the cockroaches are going to use to build their civilization in a 100M years.
Fidelity and every other brokerage of which I have knowledge would let you do the same thing (get into a bad trade, and then liquidate your position when you exceed margin limits). This isn't a "Robinhood" thing, this is an "ignorant gamblers who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a margin account" thing.
It is not the same. Wall Street is playing with other people money mostly pensions and funds borrowed from the state.
Melvin securities is a completely different company than Melvin capital.

Retail did nothing to Citadel securities.